*1. “Small means safe”/big city danger:* At this point in history, plagues hit big, cramped cities harder because a lot of people living very close together in extremely unhygienic conditions was ground zero. Chamber pots being emptied into the gutters would defile the drinking water and cause epidemics like cholera or dysentery, aka the flux. Because people bathed so infrequently, let alone washed their hands or covered their mouths or anything, and because plagues like cholera are actually caused by overcrowding, a small town *would* be safer than a big city.

*2. “She was fearless” v. “She died of the plague”:* The movie makes it quite clear that Belle’s mother asked Maurice to flee with baby Belle from the infected city and the disease, possibly because — as an uncommonly intelligent woman for her time — she may have guessed at the causes and perpetuating factors of the epidemic and realized it was too late for her. Giving up your child so she can have her best chance and dying alone of a hideous plague strikes me as pretty fearless. The fact that he left his wife to die alone of the plague clearly haunts Maurice, which is why he’s so reluctant to talk about her.

*3. You can’t just throw in a whole new artifact:* In the original version, and others that cropped up around it, the Beast has an assortment of magical artifacts. The best known one is actually a ring he gives Belle that can transport her anywhere if she turns it on her finger, and transport her back to his castle when she turns it a second time. It’s a huge plot point in the original story because the Beast gives her the ring to return to her family with trunks full of gifts, because he can see how much she misses them. (Fun fact: In the original version, Belle has six brothers who want to kill the Beast and/or six sisters who are jealous of Belle and want her clearly more advantageous marriage ended…preferably by killing the Beast, her outrageously wealthy royal husband.) Because there’s no Gaston in the original fairytale, something else has to nearly kill the Beast so Belle can admit she loves him and finally agree to marry him. That something else is the Beast’s broken heart should Belle not return to him in 3 days.

It is Belle’s reluctance to return that very nearly kills him: She decides, knowing he specifically told her he would not survive 3 days without her, to stay one more night in her father’s house — and that’s a very important point when you consider the fact that the original fairytale was a story written by a woman for young women whose fathers were giving them away to wealthy old men to settle their debts…you know, to avoid debtor’s prison…aka, the Beast ransoming Maurice for Belle. Its purpose was to describe how an older husband could and should be expected to treat his young, reluctant bride — and it’s not by locking her in her room and starving her. The Beast gives Belle full access to the castle as lady of said castle. They have dinner together every night, stimulating conversation, he pours her drink and serves her plate as best he can with large, ungainly paws, and he is the picture of chivalry. At the end of dinner every frickin’ night, he asks her, “Will you marry me?” or “Do you love me?” or “Will you come to bed with me?” depending on the version you’re reading, and Belle says, “No. I can’t.” And the Beast is disheartened, but he bows out gracefully and leaves her alone. *Because a decent husband, arranged or not, respects consent.* In giving her that ring (untraceable escape) and those trunks (wealth independent of her husband), and telling her in no uncertain terms that his heart will give out if she doesn’t return in 3 days, the Beast offers Belle an out — the only out the system at the time allowed. Because he can tell she isn’t happy with him, and he doesn’t want her to return to her family disgraced and unable to remarry. He offers her freedom through early widowhood. And she *almost* takes him up on it. And he *doesn’t* hate her for that. That’s a *really* progressive message for that time.

Beauty and the Beast was never about Stockholm Syndrome, and it really bothers me that it’s been reduced to that now. The magical book is a nod to that oversight.

Personally, I would have liked to see the teleporting ring in the non-animated version, but since that probably would have confused the audience even more, Disney appears to have replaced the ring with a magic book. Because Belle and books, and the library.

Hope that was helpful, I realize I am writing this well over a year after the fact. Y’all are awesome!

SuperCarlinBrothers Enormous fan here! Please read Liz Braswell’s “As Old As Time” from her Twisted Tale series. It’s published by the Disney Press. It challenges the question of “What if Belle’s mother cursed the Beast?” It’s the best one in the series so far. I do have to say that this series is a little darker than expected but beautifully so. You don’t have to read the first two (whose stories revolve around 1.Aladdin then 2.Aurora which are both a little pain to get through) to understand this one. I feel like you out of all people will appreciate this rendition:) Thanks for being totally awesome Ben and Jay. Much love <3

Emma Watson is a good singer considering she’s known for movie acting, but the problem is that the other people in the main cast have had al least SOME theatrical experience. Luke Evans(Gaston) has done work in the U.K. Tour of Miss Saigon, Josh Gad(LeFou) has done Book of Mormon on Broadway, Ewan McGregor(Lumier) has done Guys and Dolls, Ian McKellen(Cogsworth) has done West End and Broadway (he won both Laurence Olivia and Tony), Emma Thompson(Mrs. Potts) has done a concert performance of Sweeney Todd, and Audra McDonald(Mme. de Garderobe) is a FREAKING OPERA SINGER WHO HAS WON 6 TONYS.

The real problem isn’t that Emma Watson can’t sing as well, but instead, the cast is not balanced on a musical level. The supporting cast has much more theatrical experience than the main character, and it makes said main character VERY overshadowed.

The 2012 movie of Les Misérables shows this on a much bigger scale. Most of the main characters (with the exception of Eponine) are screen actors who can well for being known in movies, while the ensemble characters are mostly from West End. This musical contrast makes it seem like the main cast are awful singers.

The 2007 Sweeney Todd movie however, is a good CASTED musical movie. All the main cast members are screen actors who can actually sing very well. There is no West End ensemble problem simply because Tim Burton cut out all the ensemble songs. The main cast balances each other out because they are not(by the general public) known for musical/theatrical performances (Alan Rickman exception, as he was a tony nominee for a play, not a musical).

5:03 I didn’t see the whole dance scene at the start as a statement on diversity. I didn’t see Prince Adam as welcoming, he just cared that every single person in his ballroom was beautiful, hence his jumping from girl to girl.

This video is old but it is fantastic. I love how you two analyze the movie. Opened my eyes to viewing a children’s classic in a way i never could on my own. I am subscribing right now. How have i never seen this channel before?

Is the original Beauty and the beast is, French or English?!? Don’t press read more until commented your vote 😉

The original was in French and was not made by Disney, it was made in 1900 some years after the Disney version was made. The Disney one is REALLY different then the French one because there no Gaston and the “bad guy” was voiced by the same person that voiced beast…..

I disagree with the French Revolution as otherwise when they realised when the beast was some kind of ruler the townspeople probably would’ve killed him or it could be after the Napoleonic wars but I’m not sure